A very important thing to consider here is that "oil companies are responsible for whatever % of carbon emissions" stats are somewhat misleading, because they usually count things like people...
A very important thing to consider here is that "oil companies are responsible for whatever % of carbon emissions" stats are somewhat misleading, because they usually count things like people using gas cars towards carbon footprint of the company that made that gas.
That's a fair criticism I also agree with, but with some caveats. While this is a two-way street, and there are feedback mechanisms, one side (companies) has much more power over the whole system,...
That's a fair criticism I also agree with, but with some caveats.
While this is a two-way street, and there are feedback mechanisms, one side (companies) has much more power over the whole system, much stronger incentives to keep the status quo, and much more influence on the other side. See the citations in this post for the last point.
I'm not against making lifestyle changes, as for instance reducing meat consumption has been shown to be a very good solution that helps with both climate change and food security crisis. However, let's not forget how the public discourse and perception around climate change responsibility have been skewed by corporate propaganda. Overfocusing on personal responsibility lets them get away with it, and that's why they pushed for it.
Being honest about where the concept of a carbon footprint came from in the first place also helps change the conversation and shine the light on other ways that oil conglomerates and other large...
Being honest about where the concept of a carbon footprint came from in the first place also helps change the conversation and shine the light on other ways that oil conglomerates and other large businesses are actively fighting responsible climate policies.
It's not at all unreasonable to assign them the majority of responsibility for where we are, both in terms of the current level of greenhouse warming and the slowness of our response to the crisis.
The way I see it, saying "X companies are responsible for X% of emissions" is just a pithy way to try to communicate to a mass audience that the bulk of the problem lies with these companies. Reframing the "carbon footprint" conversation is also a way to do that.
The real issue is with the amount of global power these companies have to influence what is manufactured, and how, combined with their ability to influence government policy. The hesitance much of the world has shown to enact aggressive reforms around climate is largely about protecting profits.
We hear oil companies and we think fuel, which is of course a big problem. But we're less likely to think of plastics. They figured that out decades ago and started to push hard to promote plastics, understanding both that they could make a lot of money quickly, and also maintain profits when gasoline use declined. Which is not to say that they didn't also keep fighting to keep gas use high.
The amount of plastic the world consumes, and the emissions that go with it, is not because people are demanding more plastic in their lives, it's because the petrocarbon industry has run a long and multifacted campaign to convince everyone to use plastic for everything.
They're evil, but they're also brilliant marketers, and as we speak they're working on new ways to influence public behavior and perception.
I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Plastic is essentially a modern wonder. It is reasonably durable over the scales that humans are most interested in; it is cheap; it is lightweight; it can...
The amount of plastic the world consumes, and the emissions that go with it, is not because people are demanding more plastic in their lives, it's because the petrocarbon industry has run a long and multifacted campaign to convince everyone to use plastic for everything.
I'm not sure I agree with that at all.
Plastic is essentially a modern wonder. It is reasonably durable over the scales that humans are most interested in; it is cheap; it is lightweight; it can be formed into all sorts of different shapes and forms and qualities; and it's reasonably hygienic. It's worth going around a modern house, finding all the plastic objects, and figuring out what the consequences would be of replacing that plastic item. Lots of things would get more expensive and difficult to produce because they'd need to be made from metal or glass; lots of things would get a lot heavier; lots of things would become less hygienic, especially related to food or medicine; some things would probably otherwise use leather or other animal-based products which have their own environmental impacts; some things would be almost impossible to properly replicate.
I don't want this to sounds like I'm defending the world's reliance on plastics, because it's very clear that our use of plastics is unsustainable for so many reasons. We need carbon taxes, we need much more research into the health impacts of microplastics, we need to curb the use of single-use plastic, and so much more. But the idea that we only use plastic because some cabal of industrialists have told us to is utterly absurd.
That is an absurd idea, and not what I said. It's interesting that you call plastic hygenic, given that we now know that plastics have various added compounds which leech into our food and get...
But the idea that we only use plastic because some cabal of industrialists have told us to is utterly absurd.
That is an absurd idea, and not what I said.
It's interesting that you call plastic hygenic, given that we now know that plastics have various added compounds which leech into our food and get into our bodies in other ways (like breathing) and once there build up and cause documented negative health effects (like endocrine disruption). And are suspected to have a variety of other serious health impacts (cancer, infertility) but the research is ongoing. We know for sure it's not good.
And I wasn't saying that it's perfect and specifically called out the health issues caused and connected to plastic as something we need to be aware of. But your claim that plastic consumption is...
And I wasn't saying that it's perfect and specifically called out the health issues caused and connected to plastic as something we need to be aware of. But your claim that plastic consumption is driven primarily by lobby interests and not because it is simply an insanely useful and versatile material is wrong. It is consumers who want convenient ways to transport food, or lightweight solid surfaces, or materials in arbitrary forms for low prices. The market for plastics has not come out of nowhere.
My worry when we talk about lobbyists in these sorts of discussions is that we end up playing the blame game, and we can't blame our way out of this crisis. Dealing with the health and environmental impact of plastics is primarily going to affect consumers, as goods that people have taken for granted become more expensive, and as improvements to our quantity of life get taken away again. There's a lot to criticise about the carbon footprint concept, but at least it does a good job of making one thing clear: lots of things that we treat as necessities for life are completely unaffordable when carbon is correctly priced into the system. And that means that the changes necessary to get climate change (and other environmental issues) under control are going to require massive changes to the ways we live our lives.
That's not my claim! My first impulse is to quote myself and try to explain, but in my experience that's never useful. If you find you're curious whether the petrocarbon industry has worked...
But your claim that plastic consumption is driven primarily by lobby interests
That's not my claim! My first impulse is to quote myself and try to explain, but in my experience that's never useful.
If you find you're curious whether the petrocarbon industry has worked intentionally to promote and increase the use of plastics, it's a non commercially adjacent topic so you'll get good results from reputable sources on the first page from any major search engine.
I would appreciate it if you did explain that bit I quoted, because I've clearly misunderstood it. It sounds like what you're describing is now just advertising?
I would appreciate it if you did explain that bit I quoted, because I've clearly misunderstood it. It sounds like what you're describing is now just advertising?
True, of course, companies play a big role in this. That's why carbon tax is an awesome policy. If you're not familiar with it, r/economics wiki has a nice explanation and FAQ
True, of course, companies play a big role in this. That's why carbon tax is an awesome policy. If you're not familiar with it, r/economics wiki has a nice explanation and FAQ
In a similar vein, it's also important to realize companies are made up of people and influenced by the culture of the people that make it up. If society as a whole embraced reducing carbon output...
In a similar vein, it's also important to realize companies are made up of people and influenced by the culture of the people that make it up. If society as a whole embraced reducing carbon output as a value companies would be more likely to choose environmentally friendly policies.
Also, you can't discount the lobby oil companies have done over the years to slow electric car development or muddy the waters of public knowledge of climate change. Like I do think oil companies...
Also, you can't discount the lobby oil companies have done over the years to slow electric car development or muddy the waters of public knowledge of climate change.
Like I do think oil companies get a large share of what we should probably own up to as consumers, but they have caused irrevocable damage.
I liked Hank Green's vaguely related video on a topic adjacent to this, which basically said how hard it is for humans to change our culture and desires, and that things which very obviously need...
I liked Hank Green's vaguely related video on a topic adjacent to this, which basically said how hard it is for humans to change our culture and desires, and that things which very obviously need to be done (cutting meat consumption) are not going to be easy, and in fact things which one would think would be much harder like creating incredibly efficient solar PV panels are much more easy.
A very important thing to consider here is that "oil companies are responsible for whatever % of carbon emissions" stats are somewhat misleading, because they usually count things like people using gas cars towards carbon footprint of the company that made that gas.
That's a fair criticism I also agree with, but with some caveats.
While this is a two-way street, and there are feedback mechanisms, one side (companies) has much more power over the whole system, much stronger incentives to keep the status quo, and much more influence on the other side. See the citations in this post for the last point.
I'm not against making lifestyle changes, as for instance reducing meat consumption has been shown to be a very good solution that helps with both climate change and food security crisis. However, let's not forget how the public discourse and perception around climate change responsibility have been skewed by corporate propaganda. Overfocusing on personal responsibility lets them get away with it, and that's why they pushed for it.
Being honest about where the concept of a carbon footprint came from in the first place also helps change the conversation and shine the light on other ways that oil conglomerates and other large businesses are actively fighting responsible climate policies.
It's not at all unreasonable to assign them the majority of responsibility for where we are, both in terms of the current level of greenhouse warming and the slowness of our response to the crisis.
The way I see it, saying "X companies are responsible for X% of emissions" is just a pithy way to try to communicate to a mass audience that the bulk of the problem lies with these companies. Reframing the "carbon footprint" conversation is also a way to do that.
The real issue is with the amount of global power these companies have to influence what is manufactured, and how, combined with their ability to influence government policy. The hesitance much of the world has shown to enact aggressive reforms around climate is largely about protecting profits.
We hear oil companies and we think fuel, which is of course a big problem. But we're less likely to think of plastics. They figured that out decades ago and started to push hard to promote plastics, understanding both that they could make a lot of money quickly, and also maintain profits when gasoline use declined. Which is not to say that they didn't also keep fighting to keep gas use high.
The amount of plastic the world consumes, and the emissions that go with it, is not because people are demanding more plastic in their lives, it's because the petrocarbon industry has run a long and multifacted campaign to convince everyone to use plastic for everything.
They're evil, but they're also brilliant marketers, and as we speak they're working on new ways to influence public behavior and perception.
I'm not sure I agree with that at all.
Plastic is essentially a modern wonder. It is reasonably durable over the scales that humans are most interested in; it is cheap; it is lightweight; it can be formed into all sorts of different shapes and forms and qualities; and it's reasonably hygienic. It's worth going around a modern house, finding all the plastic objects, and figuring out what the consequences would be of replacing that plastic item. Lots of things would get more expensive and difficult to produce because they'd need to be made from metal or glass; lots of things would get a lot heavier; lots of things would become less hygienic, especially related to food or medicine; some things would probably otherwise use leather or other animal-based products which have their own environmental impacts; some things would be almost impossible to properly replicate.
I don't want this to sounds like I'm defending the world's reliance on plastics, because it's very clear that our use of plastics is unsustainable for so many reasons. We need carbon taxes, we need much more research into the health impacts of microplastics, we need to curb the use of single-use plastic, and so much more. But the idea that we only use plastic because some cabal of industrialists have told us to is utterly absurd.
That is an absurd idea, and not what I said.
It's interesting that you call plastic hygenic, given that we now know that plastics have various added compounds which leech into our food and get into our bodies in other ways (like breathing) and once there build up and cause documented negative health effects (like endocrine disruption). And are suspected to have a variety of other serious health impacts (cancer, infertility) but the research is ongoing. We know for sure it's not good.
And I wasn't saying that it's perfect and specifically called out the health issues caused and connected to plastic as something we need to be aware of. But your claim that plastic consumption is driven primarily by lobby interests and not because it is simply an insanely useful and versatile material is wrong. It is consumers who want convenient ways to transport food, or lightweight solid surfaces, or materials in arbitrary forms for low prices. The market for plastics has not come out of nowhere.
My worry when we talk about lobbyists in these sorts of discussions is that we end up playing the blame game, and we can't blame our way out of this crisis. Dealing with the health and environmental impact of plastics is primarily going to affect consumers, as goods that people have taken for granted become more expensive, and as improvements to our quantity of life get taken away again. There's a lot to criticise about the carbon footprint concept, but at least it does a good job of making one thing clear: lots of things that we treat as necessities for life are completely unaffordable when carbon is correctly priced into the system. And that means that the changes necessary to get climate change (and other environmental issues) under control are going to require massive changes to the ways we live our lives.
That's not my claim! My first impulse is to quote myself and try to explain, but in my experience that's never useful.
If you find you're curious whether the petrocarbon industry has worked intentionally to promote and increase the use of plastics, it's a non commercially adjacent topic so you'll get good results from reputable sources on the first page from any major search engine.
I would appreciate it if you did explain that bit I quoted, because I've clearly misunderstood it. It sounds like what you're describing is now just advertising?
True, of course, companies play a big role in this. That's why carbon tax is an awesome policy. If you're not familiar with it, r/economics wiki has a nice explanation and FAQ
In a similar vein, it's also important to realize companies are made up of people and influenced by the culture of the people that make it up. If society as a whole embraced reducing carbon output as a value companies would be more likely to choose environmentally friendly policies.
Also, you can't discount the lobby oil companies have done over the years to slow electric car development or muddy the waters of public knowledge of climate change.
Like I do think oil companies get a large share of what we should probably own up to as consumers, but they have caused irrevocable damage.
I liked Hank Green's vaguely related video on a topic adjacent to this, which basically said how hard it is for humans to change our culture and desires, and that things which very obviously need to be done (cutting meat consumption) are not going to be easy, and in fact things which one would think would be much harder like creating incredibly efficient solar PV panels are much more easy.